Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apotex Pty Ltd v Cipla Limited [2017] FCA 1627 File number: VID 1229 of 2017
Judge: BEACH J
Date of judgment: 22 December 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – patents – interlocutory application – injunction – prima facie case – validity of patent – infringement of patent – balance of convenience – application granted
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 18, 20, 40 Statute of Monopolies 1624, 21 Jac 1 c 3, s 6
Cases cited: Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 212 CLR 411 Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis (2008) 78 IPR 485; [2008] FCA 1194 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Hexal Australia Pty Ltd v Roche Therapeutics (2005) 66 IPR 325; [2005] FCA 1218 InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc (No 3) [2017] FCA 1536 Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1997) 137 CLR 228 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Limited v Generic Health Pty Ltd (2012) 291 ALR 763; [2012] FCA 239 Samsung Electronics Co Limited v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238 Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences (2009) 82 IPR 467; [2009] FCAFC 142 The General Tire & Rubber Company v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited [1972] RPC 457
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate